Definition of Theft?
|
Marcel Flatley
Sampireun Design
Join date: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 2,032
|
10-17-2008 10:22
From: Colette Meiji He is attacking another Poster. Rather nastily. I spoke up about it. He is also being internally inconsistent on his "Liar" claims. I pointed that out. ------------ I don't count my posts therefore if it were 4 it was 4, big deal. You really need to get over this "Stirrer" bullshit. I am as entitled to comment on this topic as anyone else. I am as entitled to comment on Phil's excessive breaking of the forum guidelines as anyone else. ------------------------------------------------------------- I will state it again so you can really, really understand me. NO POSTER EVER has made as many direct personal attack posts on these forums as Phil Deakins. Any of his competition were BANNED log before they would have gotten to a fraction of his nasty posts. He therefore should correct his behavior, or be banned. You do not have to repeat yourself, I could read it very well in the last 4 postings. Yes you have any right to comment on this topic as anyone else. But you didn't, did you. You just saw a great opportunity to ventilate your grudge against Phil. So the same could be said for you Colette: you should correct your behavior or be banned. Want to repeat yourself once more? Or do you have actually something sensible to say about the topic?
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 10:24
From: Mickey Vandeverre Nice shot Phil. Wrong. But nice shot. It's not wrong. You said yourself that you require inclusion in your notecard to be reciprocated in some way. In other words, you make your notecard for your benefit rather than for your group's benefit. Early in the thread, you were making out that you do it for the group members, but now you say that you require reciprocals for a store to be included in the list. It's what you wrote yourself.
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
10-17-2008 10:27
From: Marcel Flatley You do not have to repeat yourself, I could read it very well in the last 4 postings. Yes you have any right to comment on this topic as anyone else. But you didn't, did you. You just saw a great opportunity to ventilate your grudge against Phil. So the same could be said for you Colette: you should correct your behavior or be banned.
I have never even been warned by a moderator. Better luck next time. You feel the need to speak up when I am a "shit stirrer" which is like I said, bullshit. How is that any different from me speaking up when Phil is bullying a new forums' poster?
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 10:32
From: Colette NO POSTER EVER has made as many direct personal attack posts on these forums as Phil Deakins. And no poster has ever been attacked and insulted in these forums anywhere near as much as Phil Deakins. A major problem with you, Colette, is that you accept it when people attack me, but you find fault with me when I retaliate. You know very well that I don't attack first, but you conveniently overlook that, because you enjoy stirring all the time. It's almost all that you do in these forums. No doubt you'll respond with some more stirring, but, unless someone quotes it, I won't see it. But it doesn't matter. Most everyone here knows what you are.
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
10-17-2008 10:35
From: Phil Deakins And no poster has ever been attacked in these forums anywhere near as much as Phil Deakins.
LOL, untrue. There have been several. From: Phil Deakins No doubt you'll respond with some more stirring, but, unless someone quotes it, I won't see it. But it doesn't matter. Most everyone here knows what you are.
If you are going to ignore me, learn to do it better.
|
RemacuTetigisti Quandry
Diogenes Group
Join date: 3 Jun 2008
Posts: 99
|
10-17-2008 10:47
Marcel, From: Marcel Flatley You say it yourself: IF everyone were prohibited. But everyone is not. We have to deal with reality, not with ifs. So what are you trying to say with this? You said that "that is where the actual reason for bots kicks in: It has become the only way to get a top ten ranking in Places Search" I was taking issue with your "only". The top ten doesn't just disappear if the bot strategy is prohibited, so there must be other factors that allow one to get a top ten ranking. From: Marcel Flatley Third option: do you see any changes occur yet? Even with one of the bot runners helping in fighting to get bots/traffic removed? So how many times has LL been pressured on this? Once in a town hall meeting? Look at history. In the sixties, it took a great deal of constant pressure to force the US government to withdraw from Vietnam. One or two protests didn't do it. From: Marcel Flatley Fourth option: If discounting your products is the way to increase business, you have a lot to learn about doing business. Furthermore, looking at my own store, I already sell for pretty low prices, so I have no idea what lowering my prices should do for me. Actually, and as you know, discounting is only one possible strategy. It's also possible to increase your price and that may result in increased sales. People sometimes mistakenly equate price with quality. Couple that with an upgrade in store environment and you might see a jump in sales. The idea being that classy plus more expensive reeks of quality. Other strategies are possible. From: Marcel Flatley Fifth option: Nonsense. No mater how good your products are, if people do not know your existence, you will not sell them. Plenty of examples in SL. Look again at what I actually wrote, Marcel. I said "do what's ethical. Good products speak for themselves". Ethical approaches can involve: --Tasteful ads in the right places --Blogging --Appearing on other peoples' blogs and newsletters that cover your type of products --Paying the L$30/week to be listed in search and using the right keywords --Joining the right groups where people as they get to know you might want to take a look at your products --Hitting the various SL fora with product releases --Taking advantage of OnRez and XstreetXL and so on. Other strategies are possible . . . other strategies that are ethical. I certainly wasn't naively suggesting no advertising and PR at all. From: Marcel Flatley There is a big difference in winning at all costs, and running bots to increase your ranking in Places Search. Yes there is a big difference . . . if someone has never thought of the possible unethicalness of the tactic. If they know the behavior is unethical, yet persist in using it, then, I submit, they're "gaming". From: Marcel Flatley Your second point is even great nonsense, as running bots is perfectly well accepted by LL, so what has getting caught to do with it? Again, this part does not make any sense. Actually, you're free to regard it as nonsense. However, I submit that whether a behavior is "legal" or not has no bearing here; the behavior may still fundamentally be unethical and a cheat. From my perspective, people who resort to such justification all too often do so because it serves their purpose(s), not because they're concerned with ethics. In RL, some politicians, some lawyers, some businessmen, and so forth, push this "legality" to justify unfair treatment to others in the name of profit, power, land, etc. . . . so that their consciences aren't too bothered by the basic unethical behavior they may be involved in. Others have no conscience at all . . . or are blindly amoral in such arenas of life. Still others have just never thought about it. Since SL is a reflection of RL, it's the latter I've been trying to reach by participating in this thread. From: Marcel Flatley Now then, I really wonder how I impact others negatively. I don't know how you do. However, if someone uses tactics like bots, from my perspective, they do impact others negatively. From: Marcel Flatley You mean the handful of people from the anti-bot camp? In this case, I don't mean "the handful of people from the anti-bot camp". First of all, I don't know that they're a mere "handful" (We'd need data to determine that). Secondly, I targeted no one specifically except those I perceive as behaving unethically. From: Marcel Flatley Because te rest of SL either does not care, or does not mind. That may be true. Perhaps it's time to push harder at getting people aroused. From: Marcel Flatley You can twist things any way you want, but that is the reality. Actually, I don't "twist" anything. I call things as I see them . . . as you do. From: Marcel Flatley There are not even a dozen people in this forum who keep on throwing ethics into bot discussions, but that dozen is the only group I can imagine impacted negatively. So tell me, do you really think that I should let my decision whether to run bots, be influenced by that dozen? I almost didn't find this discussion; I'm not surprised others haven't found it. I typically scan the forums lightly and then drop into SL to work most of the day. And then there's the matter of abusive personalities (I'm not targeting you here). That, all by itself, would have normally stopped me from participating. I made a mistake and got sucked in. I suspect others have been smarter. As far as the people who are impacted negatively: My thesis here is if anyone inflates his or her rankings in search, they're usurping the positions that would have normally been occupied by other businesses who didn't resort to such tactics. In essence, those more ethical businesses are being cheated out of their just due for the efforts they've been making to promote their products. Those ethical businesses also may have lost sales that they might have otherwise gotten if those unethical strategies had not been in play. The second group that gets impacted negatively is the consumer. He or she expects to find a good place to purchase quality stuff at the best price. If I click on the top choice in search and it turns out to have inferior or tacky goods, I've wasted time and I've inadvertently upped that businesses numbers so they continue to appear to be a good place to go . . . when they may not be. I've in essence been duped into supporting a business I would not normally support. If I have to sort through a lot of these less-than-wonderful choices, I waste even more time. That makes me even more unhappy. From: Marcel Flatley . . .You (meaning that dozen again) are trying to dictate your ethics upon us, not the other way around. My objective in participating in this discussion was to make people think about the ethics rather than discount them based on "business is business". I really don't care whether you change your view or not. You are your own person. However, I would hope that you and anyone else here would think about what you're doing beyond the "gaming" mentality often exhibited by some. Ethical behavior keeps society running smoothly. Unethical behavior results in destructive contention, anger, frustration, and sometimes violence. From: Marcel Flatley We are just running our business the way we think fit, sell good products, give good customer service, and either run bots or not (as you know, I do not). If I have a choice to make sure people can find my store, and buy my products of they lke them, or suit you and the rest of the dozen, the choice is not that hard. Marcel, you are running your business in what I perceive to be an ethical way. You I have no issue with. From: Marcel Flatley Really, it is only a very small group agitating against bots. From a statistical standpoint, we have no data about how prevalent my ethical perspective is in SL. A dozen people here represents a statistically biased sample even if the dozen represents the majority somehow here. As does the small group advocating against this cluster of individuals. FWIW, if the number of people here wasn't inherently biased by self-selection, accessibility, and other factors . . . and if the number of people here somehow really could be generalized to the population at large, the normal interpretation of 12/14 (plus or minus a few) would be that more than a majority are in the ethical behavior camp. However, we can't really say one way or another without hard, objective data properly analyzed.
_____________________
--- Rema 
|
Marcel Flatley
Sampireun Design
Join date: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 2,032
|
10-17-2008 10:59
From: Colette Meiji I have never even been warned by a moderator. Better luck next time. You feel the need to speak up when I am a "shit stirrer" which is like I said, bullshit. How is that any different from me speaking up when Phil is bullying a new forums' poster? Better luck next time? I would not know with what Colette. Though I was surprised from the start that moderators let a person with such trollish behavior as you have continue, I found out long time ago that you really have to go far to get banned here. And I find your twisting and turning even amusing at times, so I could not care less whether you are banned or not. And yes I feel the need to speak up if you are posting just to stir shit. You know you are doing that, and probably sit grinning behind your monitor doing it. So in some way I do you a favor with my reaction, if no one reacted you would miss your fun. That is the sole reason I regret my reaction: trolls should never be fed.
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
10-17-2008 11:11
From: Marcel Flatley Better luck next time? I would not know with what Colette. Though I was surprised from the start that moderators let a person with such trollish behavior as you have continue, I found out long time ago that you really have to go far to get banned here. And I find your twisting and turning even amusing at times, so I could not care less whether you are banned or not.
And yes I feel the need to speak up if you are posting just to stir shit. You know you are doing that, and probably sit grinning behind your monitor doing it. So in some way I do you a favor with my reaction, if no one reacted you would miss your fun. That is the sole reason I regret my reaction: trolls should never be fed. Ahh so I am a troll now, huh? A shit stirring troll no less. Yet Phil is just defending himself with all those nasty things he says to people. Careful Marcel your Bias is showing, might want to cover that up.
|
Mickey Vandeverre
See you Inworld
Join date: 7 Dec 2006
Posts: 2,542
|
10-17-2008 11:59
From: Phil Deakins It's not wrong. You said yourself that you require inclusion in your notecard to be reciprocated in some way. In other words, you make your notecard for your benefit rather than for your group's benefit. Early in the thread, you were making out that you do it for the group members, but now you say that you require reciprocals for a store to be included in the list. It's what you wrote yourself. Phil, I will only respond to your remarks, if they are an outright misinterpretation of what I've written (which is 99% of the time).... I did not say that reciprocation was "required." I stated that it is one of the keys. To expand on that....I prefer to work with people, who are on the same page, and have the same attitudes about business....it is not "required", to do business with someone.....but I tend to do gravitate toward those people, and enjoy working with them. I also mentioned in the following quote you are twisting.....that there were "other" reasons....I don't care to go into, here, that would be between me and Marcel. From: Mickey Vandeverre Way off base, again, Marcel....but your attitude speaks volumes about why I'm not interested in working with you. I could give you a list of a dozen reasons, and if you're asking for "honesty"....you've got it.
1) Everyone I'm working with, understands that Reciprocation is one of the keys to the process. You just wanted to be "on the list"....with no offer as to how you can help, in return. It's a lot of extra work for me, and also keep in mind that I am sending people to "other" furniture stores, while promoting my own....the best you could offer up was to come back in here, and report whether or not it brought you a ton of business, so it would prove Phil wrong or to prove me wrong. Well, that was not the mission, and I don't want to be used that way.
Now....if that is not honest enough....I will list the other 11 reasons for you.
Let It Go. I'm not sure how you are qualified to comment on my notecards, Phil. Have you received one? As far as dragging my group into this....I do the notecards as a service to them, because they've told me they love them. Yes, it is marketing for me.....Yes, it is marketing for other businesses.....but it also provides a great resource to help the group members find great products quickly. It is Win/Win for both the shopper and the business. Today's notecard sent was Fall and Halloween Decorating tips.....half of the businesses I referred to on it, are friends, and the other half, have not met me yet....no reciprocation required....I found awesome items at their stores this week....and I'm passing that info on. I imagine I will make a few new friends, by the end of the day, by including their store.....that in itself, is reciprocation. And I've already had a dozen "Thank Yous" from group members. WIN/WIN I'm offering the above INFO for other business owners to absorb, and think about. I hope it has some benefit, by giving you some ideas, whether it includes me, or not.....we are having fun doing these promotions. I prefer not to post simply to wrestle with Phil.....but if I see an educational opportunity amidst the mud slinging.....I'll take it. I'm headed in a Positive direction.... Which direction are you going Phil? Have a Great Weekend. 
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 12:14
Then if reciprocation isn't a requirement, why even mention it?
|
Mickey Vandeverre
See you Inworld
Join date: 7 Dec 2006
Posts: 2,542
|
10-17-2008 12:18
From: Phil Deakins Then if reciprocation isn't a requirement, why even mention it? You're grasping at straws now, Phil....not worth responding to....except that I hope you direct your energy in a positive direction, this weekend.......
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 12:33
I know that your post was written to Marcel, but I have to straighten you out on at least some of it. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Marcel, You said that "that is where the actual reason for bots kicks in: It has become the only way to get a top ten ranking in Places Search" I was taking issue with your "only". The top ten doesn't just disappear if the bot strategy is prohibited, so there must be other factors that allow one to get a top ten ranking. Why didn't you go and learn about what you're discussing, as I suggested a number of times? Don't you think it's useful to have some knowledge of the topic? Do you think you're good enough to wing it without any knowledge? If you do, I can tell you that you're failing miserably. There is NO other way to get a top 10 ranking than by traffic. Traffic is the *only* ranking factor. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry So how many times has LL been pressured on this? Once in a town hall meeting? Nope. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry If they know the behavior is unethical, yet persist in using it, then, I submit, they're "gaming". But it's not unethical, so that ends that argument. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry In this case, I don't mean "the handful of people from the anti-bot camp". First of all, I don't know that they're a mere "handful" (We'd need data to determine that). Secondly, I targeted no one specifically except those I perceive as behaving unethically. Who is this "we"? Hang around the forum, and you'll the picture. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Perhaps it's time to push harder at getting people aroused. Would you like to rephrase that? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Actually, I don't "twist" anything. I call things as I see them . . . as you do. But you see with blurred vision. You've been doing an awful lot of arguing from fallacy in this thread; i.e. twisting things. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry And then there's the matter of abusive personalities (I'm not targeting you here). That, all by itself, would have normally stopped me from participating. I made a mistake and got sucked in. I suspect others have been smarter. You know what to do if you don't want the abuse aimed at you, don't you? Don't fire it first - then it won't come back. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry As far as the people who are impacted negatively: My thesis here is if anyone inflates his or her rankings in search, they're usurping the positions that would have normally been occupied by other businesses who didn't resort to such tactics. In essence, those more ethical businesses are being cheated out of their just due for the efforts they've been making to promote their products. Those ethical businesses also may have lost sales that they might have otherwise gotten if those unethical strategies had not been in play. Utter garbage. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry The second group that gets impacted negatively is the consumer. He or she expects to find a good place to purchase quality stuff at the best price. If I click on the top choice in search and it turns out to have inferior or tacky goods, I've wasted time and I've inadvertently upped that businesses numbers so they continue to appear to be a good place to go . . . when they may not be. I've in essence been duped into supporting a business I would not normally support.
If I have to sort through a lot of these less-than-wonderful choices, I waste even more time. That makes me even more unhappy. More utter garbage. What if the first place you visit has excellent products, but used bots to get the top ranking so that you visited it? See? What you said it utter garbage. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry My objective in participating in this discussion was to make people think about the ethics rather than discount them based on "business is business". Then don't start by insulting the ones you want to get through to. I hope you've learned a useful lesson in this thread. You say it's unethical. In what way? Just you saying that something is unethical isn't a very persuasive argument, is it? Would you like to expand on it? And yet again... Why are you so fired up about traffic bots?
|
Marcel Flatley
Sampireun Design
Join date: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 2,032
|
10-17-2008 12:33
From: Mickey Vandeverre I did not say that reciprocation was "required." I stated that it is one of the keys. To expand on that....I prefer to work with people, who are on the same page, and have the same attitudes about business....it is not "required", to do business with someone.....but I tend to do gravitate toward those people, and enjoy working with them. I also mentioned in the following quote you are twisting.....that there were "other" reasons....I don't care to go into, here, that would be between me and Marcel. The reasons are quite obvious. You can make it look prettier then it is, but to no avail. I run a business without bots, and told you I'd be happy to be on the list. If you would even have considered on having me on that list, the least you could have done is asking me what I could do to help. Or giving me some directions on how your group works. But as I said before, I never expected an invitation. Might have been quite different if I had agreed with your opinion, but that is not my style. You can say there are "other" reasons as much as you want, but is obvious enough to anyone having read this thread what its really about 
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 12:34
From: Mickey Vandeverre You're grasping at straws now, Phil....not worth responding to....except that I hope you direct your energy in a positive direction, this weekend....... Straws? I asked you a question. I didn't make any statements. Are you afraid to answer the question? Here's another question for you. Since reciprocating is a "key" to being listed in your notecard, what sort of reciprocation? Early in the thread, I praised you for your efforts with the notecard. But since you stated that reciprocation is a key to being listed in the card, I withdraw that praise. It's just a business play for yourself, which is fine, but you did misrepresent it earlier in the thread.
|
Marcel Flatley
Sampireun Design
Join date: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 2,032
|
10-17-2008 12:43
From: Colette Meiji Ahh so I am a troll now, huh? A shit stirring troll no less. Yet Phil is just defending himself with all those nasty things he says to people. Careful Marcel your Bias is showing, might want to cover that up. What Bias Colette? Care to explain that? And as far as Phil is concerned, I said it before and I will say it again. In no way I agree with his way of responding, it is not a way I do like myself. But what I have seen as long as I have seen him posting, is that each and every person he gets nasty to, started it themselves. He prolongs it more then I like, but he never fired a first shot, at least not that I can remember. As far as you are concerned: You indeed do fit in the definition of a troll. According to wikipedia: From: Wikipedia An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an discussion or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. Really, I would not know a person fitting this definition better then you Colette. The 4 postings I was talking about are one of many examples for it. Then again, you have 15000 postings on your name. There must be a few of them that were not trolling. That credit I cannot deny you.
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
10-17-2008 13:07
From: Marcel Flatley What Bias Colette? Care to explain that?
Sure. You are Phil's buddy. Everyone who has paid attention to these threads long enough KNOWS you are Phil's buddy. You even use terms Phil used to use directed at me. You are obviously Biased towards your buddy, Phil. From: Marcel Flatley And as far as Phil is concerned, I said it before and I will say it again. In no way I agree with his way of responding, it is not a way I do like myself. But what I have seen as long as I have seen him posting, is that each and every person he gets nasty to, started it themselves. He prolongs it more then I like, but he never fired a first shot, at least not that I can remember.
This would be a crock. He doesn't retaliate he ESCALATES. And he has many times thrown out the first insult. And is also quick to throw out an insult over only a perceived slight.
|
Marcel Flatley
Sampireun Design
Join date: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 2,032
|
10-17-2008 13:09
Not going to quote the entire paragraphs, as it would make the posting too long for one page  From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry You said that "that is where the actual reason for bots kicks in: It has become the only way to get a top ten ranking in Places Search" I was taking issue with your "only". The top ten doesn't just disappear if the bot strategy is prohibited, so there must be other factors that allow one to get a top ten ranking. And yet it is the only way. As soon as bot strategy is prohibited, you are right, but it is not. I refuse to debate on terms like: "what if". From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry So how many times has LL been pressured on this? Once in a town hall meeting? Look at history. In the sixties, it took a great deal of constant pressure to force the US government to withdraw from Vietnam. One or two protests didn't do it. Of course, but come back with more then a handful of people. And honestly, you have my blessing. Phil's blessing as well, as he stated before. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Look again at what I actually wrote, Marcel. I said "do what's ethical. Good products speak for themselves". (cut out a lot of examples) Yes I am aware on advertising possibilities, but it does not bring you in the picture in Places Search. And before Search All was there, Places Search was very much used. Hence the many bots. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry If they know the behavior is unethical, yet persist in using it, then, I submit, they're "gaming". But they do not believe it is unethical. Even I do not believe that, and I am not running bots. So is it not gaming if I do not believe its unethical then? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Actually, you're free to regard it as nonsense. However, I submit that whether a behavior is "legal" or not has no bearing here; the behavior may still fundamentally be unethical and a cheat. From my perspective, people who resort to such justification all too often do so because it serves their purpose(s), not because they're concerned with ethics. Here is a nice one: it does not serve a single purpose to a non-bot-runner: Me. What I AM concerned with, is the condemning of people by calling them unethical, simply because I think it is uncalled for. But that is from my perspective. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry I don't know how you do. However, if someone uses tactics like bots, from my perspective, they do impact others negatively. In this case, I don't mean "the handful of people from the anti-bot camp". First of all, I don't know that they're a mere "handful" (We'd need data to determine that). Secondly, I targeted no one specifically except those I perceive as behaving unethically. Question remains, who do they impact negatively? Not me, for sure. I could not care less whether a shopkeeper runs bots. And some of the bot parcels are very well visited, by real avatars, so they are not too much impacted in a negative way either. So who is, that's the question. Your answer: From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry As far as the people who are impacted negatively: My thesis here is if anyone inflates his or her rankings in search, they're usurping the positions that would have normally been occupied by other businesses who didn't resort to such tactics. In essence, those more ethical businesses are being cheated out of their just due for the efforts they've been making to promote their products. Those ethical businesses also may have lost sales that they might have otherwise gotten if those unethical strategies had not been in play. So much for being ethical, I would say. But let me clarify why I would say that, though I did it before. Whether we like it or not, traffic gaming is not new: many business use it, and did so for quite a while. So when a new business, with great products, starts up, they are faced with ranking 101. Knowing that the first 100 are using bots and/or camping to get there. No matter on how well they promote themselves, the can never get notices in Search. Only by using the same, apparently accepted tactics. Yes, accepted. They are wide spread enough to say they are accepted. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry The second group that gets impacted negatively is the consumer. He or she expects to find a good place to purchase quality stuff at the best price. If I click on the top choice in search and it turns out to have inferior or tacky goods, I've wasted time and I've inadvertently upped that businesses numbers so they continue to appear to be a good place to go . . . when they may not be. I've in essence been duped into supporting a business I would not normally support. This could happen with any kind of sorting, so to me it is irrelevant. There is no way of knowing whether you will find a top 1 store a good place for you in Search All either. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Ethical behavior keeps society running smoothly. Unethical behavior results in destructive contention, anger, frustration, and sometimes violence. True often, but except in these kind of threads, I cannot see these effects in SL, as far as bots are concerned. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry From a statistical standpoint, we have no data about how prevalent my ethical perspective is in SL. A dozen people here represents a statistically biased sample even if the dozen represents the majority somehow here. As does the small group advocating against this cluster of individuals. What we do know is that there is a small group of vocal anti-botters, and an even smaller vocal group not-anti-botters. The majority (there they are again) could not care less. They do their shopping, and are either happy or not with what they find. If I could every single poster in these threads in the last half year, I would not be surprised if it turns out around 50/50, but its still virtualy nothing compared to the userbase.
|
Marcel Flatley
Sampireun Design
Join date: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 2,032
|
10-17-2008 13:14
From: Colette Meiji Sure. You are Phil's buddy. Everyone who has paid attention to these threads long enough KNOWS you are Phil's buddy. You even use terms Phil used to use directed at me. You are obviously Biased towards your buddy, Phil. Now you are making me laugh, thanks  Phil is not even on my friends list. We did speak to each other in-world about Search ranking, that's all. Too hard to handle that I rather take his side of the fence then yours Colette? Not too much needed for that. From: Colette Meiji This would be a crock. He doesn't retaliate he ESCALATES. Indeed does the way he retaliates often lead to escalation, and I repeatedly said I do not like that at all. From: Colette Meiji And he has many times thrown out the first insult. And is also quick to throw out an insult over only a perceived slight. Examples? You forgot to quote the part about trolling and the Wikipedia definition. Amazing how well it fits you, isn't it?
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
10-17-2008 13:24
From: Marcel Flatley Now you are making me laugh, thanks  Phil is not even on my friends list. We did speak to each other in-world about Search ranking, that's all. Too hard to handle that I rather take his side of the fence then yours Colette? Not too much needed for that. Which is otherwise known as BIAS, duh. From: Marcel Flatley Indeed does the way he retaliates often lead to escalation, and I repeatedly said I do not like that at all.
Thats because he is an ass. Dozens. You largely only participating in Bots threads explains why you don't know what you are talking about. He even admits to doing it in a couple of threads, scroll up to his rant where he inferred I was a liar. From: someone You forgot to quote the part about trolling and the Wikipedia definition. Amazing how well it fits you, isn't it?
I didn't feel like justifying that drivel with a response. You may feel I am a troll. So what? It does not make it true.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 14:03
Ignore her, Marcel. Once she's got into something, she doesn't let go. She just keeps on stirring and stirring and stirring, mixed with falsehood and twisting of things. In her post that you quoted, for instance, she's stirring and stirring, and stating a falsehood. She knows that I started the insults in 2 threads a long time ago, and so do many other people here. There was a reason for it but it didn't excuse it, and I later apologised for them. Those 2 occasions are she means by "many times". If she means anything more than those, then she'e lying, and if she means those 2, then "many times" is certainly deceptive. She's right about one thing though - I am sometimes involved in escalating it. I don't always fire back, but when I do I sometimes add to it. My rationale is this. If somebody fires one insult at me, then I consider that I'm entitled to fire one back. And just as that person thought it was ok to fire one at me, and go one up, then I think it's ok for me also to go one up against that person. And by the same rationale, I don't see anything against going 2 up  I don't always give back more than I receive (I don't always give back at all), but I do sometimes. It escalates when the person fires back, and so on. I'm certainly part of the escalation, and so is the other person. And oftentimes, so is Colette, because she stirs it up (trolls), just like she's doing now. The other falsehood in her post is the bit about a perceived slight. It isn't true, of course, but that doesn't stop Colette from saying it. Heck, Colette has shown herself to be incapable of even recognising insults - unless they are written by me, of course 
|
Mickey Vandeverre
See you Inworld
Join date: 7 Dec 2006
Posts: 2,542
|
Holy Geez.....settle down there, Phil
10-17-2008 14:30
Phil, Phil, Phil......what is all this about? Your Obsessiveness with me is getting the best of you.....and rather embarrassing, I might add.....also giving me the Creeps. Take a deep breathe and relax. Breathe Innnn......Breathe Outtttt.........ahhhhhhhhhh. I'm thinking back to the last time I was in your store.....and if I remember correctly.....you had lured me down on one of your beds.....demonstrating the new positions you had tweaked.........of course, I didn't stay long....... Is that what this is all about??? a little tension there? no satisfaction? the rejection??? Phil! This is not the place for that! Get over it, sweetie.....there will be others.......eventually........ 
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 14:59
From: Mickey Vandeverre Phil, Phil, Phil......what is all this about? Your Obsessiveness with me is getting the best of you.....and rather embarrassing, I might add.....also giving me the Creeps. Take a deep breathe and relax. Breathe Innnn......Breathe Outtttt.........ahhhhhhhhhh. I'm thinking back to the last time I was in your store.....and if I remember correctly.....you had lured me down on one of your beds.....demonstrating the new positions you had tweaked.........of course, I didn't stay long....... Is that what this is all about??? a little tension there? no satisfaction? the rejection??? Phil! This is not the place for that! Get over it, sweetie.....there will be others.......eventually........  LOL. You mean we've actually met? I can honestly say that I've never once lured anyone onto any sex animations in my store, so I can honestly say that you're a liar. If it was intended as humour, it failed. What's the matter, Mickey. Can't answer the questions? Why not? Because your notecards are not at all like you made them out to be earlier in the thread?
|
Mickey Vandeverre
See you Inworld
Join date: 7 Dec 2006
Posts: 2,542
|
10-17-2008 15:07
The rejected ones always feign "forgetfulness"...... I finally figured it out, Phil....and put a finger on it.....and yes, you did. Breathe Innnnn......Breathe Outttttttttt........
|
Jojogirl Bailey
jojo's Folly owner
Join date: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 1,094
|
10-17-2008 15:30
I forget who asked about how many hours of town hall type meeting there were on traffic. TBH I dont remember the exact number, but they were held numerous times to allow folks from different time zones to participate. They also were held over a period of about two months with each set of meetings addressing various details of the topic. They were quite extensive and very well attended. In addition, very long transcripts were forwarded to all group members and some of us even got together at other times without Lindens there just to chat about the issues and understand each other's concerns, even if they differed. These meetings i believe took place in early summer.
This was a well publicized, well attended, well executed and very extensive attempt by LL to gather info and allow residents to offer their input, concerns and potential solutions. Unfortunately all this momentum that was generated came to a screeching halt and gave many the appearance that this was not a big concern to LL as evidenced by the recent notecard. I should add that lindens also shared their input regarding traffic and current and future methods of dealing with search.
The good part is it gave me a much better understanding of LL's stance and also helped me understand the views of others tho many were different than mine on a variety of details. The bad part is that the lack of activity after all of that actually was quite a let down for me and i subsequently left the group since i saw no value in just having it on my group list if no activities and info were going to come.
_____________________
Director of Marketing - Etopia Island Corporation Marketing and Business Consultant Jojo's Folly - Owner
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 16:14
From: Mickey Vandeverre The rejected ones always feign "forgetfulness"...... I finally figured it out, Phil....and put a finger on it.....and yes, you did. Breathe Innnnn......Breathe Outttttttttt........ Well, well, well. Can't keep it here, eh? You had to carry on in IMs. You're pathetic. But I did learn something... This girl is the one who I did favour for a while back. I made something for her and didn't charge for it. She's just reminded about it in IMs - and she's still going on and on and on... It seems that I did get on the animations with her to demonstrate them. I do that sometimes. Her lie was that I "lured" her. Now it's just semantics it seems, so luring her and demoing the anims with her are the same thing. I wonder why she chose to write "lured" then. And get this, I must be gay because no man forgets sliding down on top of her. I'm serious. That's what she said to me. Where the hell do they come from?
|